Disenchantment

[on:]

Welp, Matt Groening's new show is finally here!

Premieres 17th August, on Netflix!

Other voice talent includes John DiMaggio, Billy West, Maurice LaMarche, Tress MacNeille, David Herman–all of whom have worked with Groening in the past

[Reply #1 on:]

Ah, very cool to finally see some of the character designs. I'm not super-duper excited for this show, fantasy and its related tropes not really being my bag, but the more I learn about it the less...indifferent I am, I guess? Like, having just burned through all of Broad City, I'm actually pretty pumped that Abbi Jacobson is voicing the female lead; I'm also curious to see how Bill Oakley and Josh Weinstein work out as executive producers, since the last time they teamed up on a Matt Groening show the results were pretty damn magical (and Weinstein was one of the better new-run writers on Futurama, to my mind).

I do wonder if the show will take any specific advantage of airing on Netflix--if there will be more episode-to-episode continuity to promote binge-watching, if we should expect a bunch of cussin' and other R-rated shenanigans, etc. The show's Wikipedia page suggests the episode run-time will fall between 20 to 25 minutes, and I'll be curious to see if there's much deviation from the traditional 22-minute format (i.e., if there's some needless bloat or filler in there).

In any event, I'll plan to watch it this August and hope for the best. It certainly does my heart good to see a bunch of Futurama-associated writers, animators, and voice actors working together once more, so at least there's that!

[Reply #2 on:]

Oh man, I never knew how much I missed that signature art style until now.

I really hope this show is good- with so many of Futurama's cast and crew being involved I'm sure it will be. My one concern is that they don't go too overboard with the show apparently being more "adult". Futurama and the Simpsons did some pretty creative things with the stricter guidelines they had, so hopefully the ability to swear and show full penetration on-screen isn't overly abused. Although I wouldn't really be too bummed out either way, to be honest.

The elf looks like a horrific cross-breed of Bart Simpson and Cubert Farnsworth.

[Reply #3 on:]

I agree with pretty much every opinion stated in this thread so far.

Though I do disagree with UrL in that I would indeed mind if they went too "adult" in this show. It is nearly impossible in my mind for a show or movie to embrace in excessive lewd speech or behavior "because they can" and still maintain their creative integrity. At the risk of sounding high-minded or elitist, that is usually low-caliber writing that is hoping to seek an immediate reaction (usually shock or laughter) from an audience that won't invest itself in refined story, plot, character development, setting, lore, etc.

I also thought of the Bart Simpson cross-breed, lol. I'm sure it's a common reaction. To me, the female in the scene is reminiscent of a Waterfall, perhaps of the Feminista variety.

Overall, I'm really looking forward to this show. I loved The Simpsons while growing up. I really loved Futurama since it first aired. So I think the only logical conclusion is that I essentially fall head over heels for this show!

[Reply #4 on:]

Not sure about a female protagonist to be honest. Lets be honest most films/TV shows with female leads are terrible. Sad to see Matt go down this liberal Hollywood fad of female leads/reboots, that female Ghostbusters and female Dirty Rotten Scoundrels are absolute abortions.

[Reply #5 on:]

Obvious troll is obvious, but it does seem worth mentioning that Futurama is basically a three-lead ensemble wherein one of the leads is, you know, a woman, and the other two are men. Disenchantment seems to be following a similar formula--two dudes, one chick--with the only difference being that, in the marketing of the show, the female character has been emphasized over the male ones. Basically, I don't know if we even have enough information to make the claim that this show is any more "about" Bean than it is about Elfo or Luci.

To be clear, your argument is total nonsense, but based on the current (scant) details we have, I don't see any fundamental difference between the lead trio of Fry, Leela, and Bender and the lead trio of Bean, Elfo, and Luci. If you don't find the former grossly offensive, then I don't see why you'd get your knickers in a knot over the latter.

[Reply #6 on:]

Not sure about a female protagonist to be honest. Lets be honest most films/TV shows with female leads are terrible. Sad to see Matt go down this liberal Hollywood fad of female leads/reboots, that female Ghostbusters and female Dirty Rotten Scoundrels are absolute abortions.

Really? Fad? You realise that women account for 50% of the population, right?

[Reply #7 on:]

Not sure about a female protagonist to be honest. Lets be honest most films/TV shows with female leads are terrible. Sad to see Matt go down this liberal Hollywood fad of female leads/reboots, that female Ghostbusters and female Dirty Rotten Scoundrels are absolute abortions.

Relax. Look, Hollywood film execs saw that the feminism is a big issue that a lot of people are talking about, especially younger people on college campuses, and cynically created a marketing campaign that sought to exploit that to sell a crappy Ghostbusters reboot they'd had on the back burner for years. I think that film executives have generally tried to exploit men's sense of masculinity in the past by pushing films such as Roman epics and westerns and war pictures, and more recently they have absolutely exploited feminist ideas in an attempt to sell horrible, conveyor belt trash to young people where they just take an old idea and swap the genders. That is real and it's stupid and it's lazy, and I do think a lot of people are blind to the fact that a huge marketing machine is exploiting their sense of identity to sell them two hours of colorful explosions. Don't try to pretend it's something new, though.

In this case, I really think you're looking for a boogeyman where there isn't one. Matt Groening has created TV shows with strong female leads for literally decades. Think about it. Marge and Lisa are more competent than Homer and Bart. Leela was more competent than Fry or Bender. This is not some new thing he's doing. His work has generally always included strong female lead characters. Part of the humor in Futurama was subverting the damsel in distress motif by having Leela roundhouse kick everyone. I really think Groening himself just likes strong female characters as opposed to it being a cynical marketing gimmick to exploit the popularity of a political movement.

Anyway, I am really excited for this. I love Matt's sense of style and humor, but the Simpsons has been a shell of itself for the better part of a decade, and it looks like Futurama is actually dead this time. I'm pumped that it's on Netflix because I don't have cable.

[Reply #8 on:]

Leela is a strong female, but I wouldn't go so far as to say she's competent...

This show sounds pretty cool.

[Reply #9 on:]

I'm looking forward to this, I don't have Netflix, nor will I pay for it, but if the show is good then I'll get it on Blu-Ray when it comes out.

[Reply #10 on:]

I'm looking forward to this, I don't have Netflix, nor will I pay for it, but if the show is good then I'll get it on Blu-Ray when it comes out.

I don't know if it's an Australia thing, but I rarely see Netfilx shows on Blu-Ray...

[Reply #11 on:]

I'm sad now

[Reply #12 on:]

Yay, Maurice LaMarche and John DiMaggio!

[Reply #13 on:]

Thanks for sharing.

[Reply #14 on:]

I could swear that "hear-ye, hear-ye" fella is Phil LaMarr, but he's not on any of the cast lists I've seen so perhaps my ears deceive me. I just think that character sounds like a sorta-hoarse Hermes.

Anyway, that promo looks damn good, animation-wise--like, that pan through the clouds to the castle was appropriately majestic. I'm still not sure I'm exactly excited for the show...but I will say that I'm a little bummed that I'll be traveling to/from a wedding on the weekend it's released on Netflix, thus precluding the possiiblity of a nice weekend binge session. Drats!

[Reply #15 on:]

Trailer looks good, especially Dreamland. A little odd hearing Hermes and then Bender, well sounds near enough them anyway!

[Reply #16 on:]

Full trailer came out a few days ago. I've gotta say, I'm pretty charmed by it. I'm really digging the animation (specifically the color palette, which reminds me pleasantly of some of the more gothic-inspired episodes of Futurama, e.g. "The Honking," "Bender's Game," and even "31st Century Fox"), and I definitely chuckled at a few moments (particularly the "I'm a good butcher!" exchange and the not-quite-dead prince requesting assistance). I guess it is safe to say that I am officially excited to binge this show in approximately one month's time.

[Reply #17 on:]

Neat! Looks rather good, thanks for sharing.

[Reply #18 on:]

Matt Groening said there's a massive twist/secret throughout the show. What are people's theories? I know we don't know much about the show yet, but just for fun, here's my theories:

1 - It is all a dream. Hence dreamland. I seriously hope this isn't the case!
2 - It is all a hallucination/drunken experience or something similar. Again, hope this isn't the case.
3 - It is actually set in the future. Technology and society collapses, and the cycle goes back round, with another medieval age etc.
4 - It is somehow connected to Futurama and/or The Simpsons. Not sure how they'd do this though seeing as the characters have 5 fingers, and are not yellow.

Anyone have any more?

[Reply #19 on:]

Heh, didn't there appear to be castles and whatnot sprouting up during Fry's time freeze, after Old New York got destroyed by aliens (and before the castles themselves got destroyed by aliens) - maybe you're right with the future bit? Maybe we'll see a frozen Fry in the corner of a frame.

I'd rather it wasn't a dream - I mean, how long does Matt see the show going on? (Not meant as a redundant question - I haven't followed all the background stuff) Having Bean "wake up" would effectively end the show, right? The only way it might work long-term is if it's revealed that she's in a coma, and she stays in the coma while we see friends and/or family at her bedside; insert several more obvious tropes and its touching but not necessarily ground-breaking. Anyway though, let's (or especially me) not over-analyse things. I'm looking forward to seeing how it all turns out

[Reply #20 on:]

1 - It is all a dream. Hence dreamland. I seriously hope this isn't the case!
2 - It is all a hallucination/drunken experience or something similar. Again, hope this isn't the case.

I hope these two aren't the case. That's such a cliche at this point, and it's already been the big twist in several episodes of Futurama.

[Reply #21 on:]

Yeah definitely, if it's a dream or 'not real' in any way then that would suck, if any of my theories were true I'd hope it to be one of the last two instead, but I'd rather it be something surprising that I haven't thought of.

[Reply #22 on:]

Heh, didn't there appear to be castles and whatnot sprouting up during Fry's time freeze, after Old New York got destroyed by aliens (and before the castles themselves got destroyed by aliens) - maybe you're right with the future bit? Maybe we'll see a frozen Fry in the corner of a frame.

Ooo, I actually kind of like that theory, though to be honest I am neither hoping for nor expecting Disenchantment to tie into the larger, uh, Groening 'verse. I'm hoping this alleged twist/secret is more along the lines of Nibbler's shadow in the Futurama pilot: hints at a larger myth arc that the series will eventually unravel for us as the episodes/seasons wear on. 

In other news, reviews for the show are coming in, and they are...a little lukewarm? Metacritic has it sitting at 54% right now, and my sense is that this review I read today on Slate (the first, and probably only, review I'll actually bother reading before the show drops; I've already decided to watch the thing, popular opinion be damned) is representative of the majority of critics' opinions. So there's that.

[Reply #23 on:]

What was Futurama's original metacritic rating?

[Reply #24 on:]

I don't put much stock in reviews nowadays. The bar to become a reviewer has been set so low and so many modern reviewers put less emphasis on the storytelling itself and more on things novel direction, casting choices and thematic devices. The politics of everyone involved, the reviewer, the cast/crew and those presented overtly on the show itself also seems to affect review scores much more than it did 10-15 years ago.

I've also read substantial rumors that big studios tend to offer perks, such as free movie passes and special screenings and memorabilia, to reviewers who tend to hand out positive reviews. It's never outright stated that you have to give a positive review to get the perks. They just offer them more to happy bubbly people who tend to drive the hype machine on social media as a means of advertising. There's an entire industry built around this. Independent consulting firms work with larger companies to help build their reputation online and drive sales by wooing so called "social influencers". Many reviewers, especially popular ones on Youtube, have been sucked into this machine.

My guess based on the review you posted is they wanted a novel new vehicle for Matt Groening's humor, but what was presented was a vehicle very similar to his previous efforts. More of the same in not inherently negative if you want something consistent with what you enjoyed before. If I eat a hamburger at my local burger joint and I enjoy it so much that I go back for another one, getting a burger the same as the one I had before isn't bad. It's what I wanted. Not novel is not the same as not good. Sometimes a good hamburger is just a good hamburger and it doesn't need to be deconstructed.

Keep in mind too, I've never seen the show. It could very well be the drizzling shits.

[Reply #25 on:]

I find it at little creepy that the main character kinda looks like me if I had a bit light hair.

[Reply #26 on:]

BoJack Horseman had mediocre reviews for the first season and it's Netflix's best show.

Either way, it's still a tad disappointing to hear about Disenchantment's so-so reception. I hope it's good.

[Reply #27 on:]

I find it at little creepy that the main character kinda looks like me if I had a bit light hair.

Clearly they created the show after spying on you, hj.

[Reply #28 on:]

Well, it's out and I watched the first few episodes. It's decent. It leans pretty heavily on slapstick comedy which is sometimes hilarious, but a lot of the time predictable and not very funny.

There's still a lot of great humor though, so I can't complain too much. The voice acting seems pretty solid as well (I especially love Matt Berry's character). Does anyone know who Billy West is voicing? I haven't been able to determine that yet.

The jokes about Luci being a cat got good laughs out of me, especially the king threatening to place a cucumber next to him.

Disenchantment is nowhere near Futurama quality but it's still very solid and has a lot of potential.

[Reply #29 on:]

Hot assessment: not necessarily must-see TV, and in some ways a bit of a tonal rehash of Futurama (Bean seems like she's supposed to come across as "rough-around-the-edges-but-more-or-less-a-decent-person" but hits some pretty sociopathic notes reminiscent of Futurama's darker gags right out of the gate*), but as a first season, stronger than the first seasons of Futurama and The Simpsons. The individual episodes flow pretty well into each other as a serial, there's plenty of room for the writing to grow even though the comedy is currently a little hit-and-miss, and the cast is mostly great (only one Julian Barratt away from a The Mighty Boosh bingo). Elfo in general and his torch-carrying for Bean in specific get old pretty quick. Visually, it's very lush, although the lapses into 3D animation both look dated and are badly-integrated with the fantasy setting.

Show spoiler

*Nitpick alert: Bean's moral dilemmas regarding accidental/justifiable killings of people (Guysbert, Hansel and Gretel, the Vikings) are a recurring element of the first half of the season, but right in the opening of the third episode, she steals a carriage, crashes it, and leaves its owner to drown in a river without even a glance back -- as a throwaway gag. I think the drowning character can be seen briefly towards the end of the episode, so maybe she survived, but it still leaves a bit of a weird tonal disconnect in having those kinds of gags playing side-by-side with a moral-fall-from-grace-by-a-thousand-cuts arc.

[Reply #30 on:]

Show spoiler

The easter egg has landed:

[Reply #31 on:]

3 - It is actually set in the future. Technology and society collapses, and the cycle goes back round, with another medieval age etc.
4 - It is somehow connected to Futurama and/or The Simpsons. Not sure how they'd do this though seeing as the characters have 5 fingers, and are not yellow.

It would be funny if that turns out to be the "medievel" new york seen during Fry's frozen millenia

[Reply #32 on:]

I'm still worried about it all being a dream. Matt Groening said that the first thing you ever see is a clue. The first thing you see is Bean sleeping on the titles.

Also, in a later episode (forgot which one), Luci mentions something about "what if dream is reality".

Really really hope it's not all a dream.

Anyway, watched all of season 1 and it's a good show. Some of the jokes fall flat, but I like it more for the story arc, creativity, and mystery.

[Reply #33 on:]

Episode 1 is fairly weak. Episode 2 is a hell of a lot better but still not amazing. 3 is actually decent. 4 is also decent but not as good as 3.

The animation is really iffy. Some shots are gorgeous whilst others are horribly clunky - not to mention badly directed and timed and sometimes just drawn. It feels like Futurama done on the cheap.

The same's true of a lot of the production details - like sound effects, for example... they all seem really uninspired. I know it's a tiny detail but think about how inventive they were on Futurama (and The Simpsons, honestly).

I'm also really unimpressed with how they're setting up a "will they? won't they?" thing between Elfo and Bean. It just seems too close to Fry and Leela.

There's also a hell of a lot of that "character-keeps-talking-for-too-long-in-a-really-pedantic-way-about-something" humour that started to creep into Futurama in the later years. It's not necessarily a bad thing...

That said, I am enjoying it and I do get the impression that it's going to get a lot better as it finds its feet. I can't wait to watch the next 6 and I'm glad it's got a second season already commissioned.

[Reply #34 on:]

The show wasn't was bad as I thought it was going to be.

[Reply #35 on:]

Episodes 8, 9, and 10 are the best, so it seems like a show that gets better as it goes along.

Agree about the Elfo/Bean fling thing though, not what we need to see.

[Reply #36 on:]

Yep, I agree that the final few episodes were very good compared to the early ones.

Turnip: I agree that the sound effects feel kind of weird. There's this weird, generic cartoony "pop" that plays all the time (usually as part of one of those lame slapstick gags) which bothers me for some reason.

[Reply #37 on:]

Why does Odval have three eyes? Is there a mythical fantasy creature that has three eyes that I'm not aware of? Because if not, then it seems too sci-fi for the fantasy setting...

[Reply #38 on:]

I finished the season and I agree; episodes 9 and 10 are great. I can't wait for season 2.

As a broad thought, there seems to be a surprising lack of pop-culture references compared to The Simpsons and Futurama. It might just be because I don't know the fantasy genre all that well, but there didn't seem to be an insane amount of nods to Game of Thrones or Lord of the Rings or Dungeons and Dragons like I was expecting - which is a good thing. It's part of what makes this series feel like its own thing.

[Reply #39 on:]

3 - It is actually set in the future. Technology and society collapses, and the cycle goes back round, with another medieval age etc.

I think this is almost certainly the case after that episode 10 Easter egg.

That said, I can't see it ever forming a big part of the plot. I think it'll just feed into the occasional background gag or reference to Futurama.